Looks like hacknoid's going to get his confirmation on the "blip" soon! Increase plus a decrease, followed by a slower increase.
Here's what I said...
Guess who just left the EU? Shhhhh....
Oh jeez. I better keep my numbers from here on out to myself, but rest assured, things are looking good.
The US stopped recording M3. There's a lot of conspiracy theories as to why they stopped, but I believe the government at face value when it says that it is difficult to determine actual M3 data. That said, the belief a lot of us (commodities traders) have had since 2006 when they stopped is that money is "leaking". It is, but into harder assets. Bitcoin is one such asset now.
Your comment about "Could Bitcoin takeover 1% of M2 ?" is really intriguing. You're thinking like I am now. I originally put a high emphasis on GDP before realizing that fiat currency "inflation" is better correlated to Bitcoin by money supply, and therefore actual use is better determined by it as well. 1% of M2 in 2016 is 1% of maybe 12 trillion USD? that's 120 Billion USD. It takes some work to compare that to Bitcoin trading/inflation data, but this is where I need to shut up because it gets too much into my currency valuation strategy.
One quick comment that I did want to make is that there's something called the 1% fallacy. The argument here being that just assuming that you are going to take over 1% of a specific market is foolish. You should assume that without significant backing, you are actually going to fail. The reason why I would argue something like Bitcoin supercedes the 1% fallacy is because Bitcoin isn't just a piece of software with a team of developers. It's a global phenomenon that has the highest network effect among it's own class, that of cryptocurrencies. If you think Bitcoin can only ever be a small market share competing with fiat currencies, then yes, Zipf's law would dictate it might never hit 1%. But if you think that eventually the entire world will be using crypto-currencies, that fiat will go the way of the Dodo, and that Bitcoin will be #1 among cryptocurrencies, then 1% by itself is NOT ENOUGH.
So yes, I think it'll eventually be 1% of M2 and beyond.
Yes, I believe more in the bear-side numbers and estimates than the bull-side ones. This is to remain very conservative in short-term predictions and expectations. I don't think in terms of days or months anymore. I think in terms of years now. I also believe hacknoid is right about the short-term (months), obviously. I just think there's also a super-cycle in effect. (I will say, this isn't what I called it when I was doing the estimates I originally made. I just called it the cycle)
No problem. It wasn't an error, just a communication problem. I only felt the need to correct it to make sure it was clear. You're very polite about it!
Yes. I really mean that is possible. But keep in mind, these are guesstimates based on adoption rates that we've yet to actually see. Obviously I expect more "Brexit"-type scenarios, and eventual adoption of the Bitcoin blockchain by major countries.
It might be 20-25 years, but yes, I see those kinds of numbers. Keep in mind there are kids who will be able to invest who aren't yet even born yet and who we, the successful crypto-currency traders, will eventually educate on its value.
You're fine. Just keep in mind there are some things I can't really go into detail on. Speculators that buy (or, specifically, sell) poorly are, whether fortunately or unfortunately, the people who I make money off of. I'm not horribly apologetic about it, but I will say your best investment strategy is to buy and hold against people trading cycles. I never short Bitcoin, though. That's too dangerous.
I have no idea who AZwarel is, but he seems to maybe grasp the idea that 100-1000x increases aren't uncalled for, even at the present prices. His other comments, like those on sex, are uncouth, in my honest opinion. We have to share success with all sorts of people, though.
I actually read this article a day or two ago! It's a good read, but I'm not sure we're "there" yet. There's a lot more interesting smart contracts that will turn into "smart algorithms" or some-such until people are able to figure out how they work and trade against them. To me, it seems very very unlikely that someone creating a smart hedge fund will not eventually trade against it anonymously once people invest in it.
Be careful of shysters who claim to be working in your best interest. If someone cannot clearly explain how they make you money, then YOU are the way THEY make money. Until we have blockchain-based smart contracts, take stories like this with a HUGE grain of salt.
Here's what I said...
Quote
Slower and longer time frames could also result in higher magnitudes as the overall volume reaches what we would expect to be the GDP of a larger European country over the next five years or so.
Guess who just left the EU? Shhhhh....
2. Super cycle, yes, you mentioned Super cycle 
, What is "supercycle" ? And is there still "supercycle" ? Is it like the "mega super spurt" ? Kindly elaborate for me in terms of word and numbers, from both perspective please.
, What is "supercycle" ? And is there still "supercycle" ? Is it like the "mega super spurt" ? Kindly elaborate for me in terms of word and numbers, from both perspective please.Oh jeez. I better keep my numbers from here on out to myself, but rest assured, things are looking good.
Quote
3. Since you've mentioned M1, M2 and M3, could you discuss it with us and how do you see it's impact on Bitcoin and vice versa ? E.g. Could Bitcoin takeover 1% of M2 ?
The US stopped recording M3. There's a lot of conspiracy theories as to why they stopped, but I believe the government at face value when it says that it is difficult to determine actual M3 data. That said, the belief a lot of us (commodities traders) have had since 2006 when they stopped is that money is "leaking". It is, but into harder assets. Bitcoin is one such asset now.
Your comment about "Could Bitcoin takeover 1% of M2 ?" is really intriguing. You're thinking like I am now. I originally put a high emphasis on GDP before realizing that fiat currency "inflation" is better correlated to Bitcoin by money supply, and therefore actual use is better determined by it as well. 1% of M2 in 2016 is 1% of maybe 12 trillion USD? that's 120 Billion USD. It takes some work to compare that to Bitcoin trading/inflation data, but this is where I need to shut up because it gets too much into my currency valuation strategy.
One quick comment that I did want to make is that there's something called the 1% fallacy. The argument here being that just assuming that you are going to take over 1% of a specific market is foolish. You should assume that without significant backing, you are actually going to fail. The reason why I would argue something like Bitcoin supercedes the 1% fallacy is because Bitcoin isn't just a piece of software with a team of developers. It's a global phenomenon that has the highest network effect among it's own class, that of cryptocurrencies. If you think Bitcoin can only ever be a small market share competing with fiat currencies, then yes, Zipf's law would dictate it might never hit 1%. But if you think that eventually the entire world will be using crypto-currencies, that fiat will go the way of the Dodo, and that Bitcoin will be #1 among cryptocurrencies, then 1% by itself is NOT ENOUGH.
So yes, I think it'll eventually be 1% of M2 and beyond.
Quote
4. Your bear-side predictions had put us at $10K and $60K, I'm not denying this and see it near to reality. But if I asked Raize about near predication he believes in, like he believes in himself, will it still be the same numbers or less ? In other words, what are the predictions you are nearly sure about ?
Yes, I believe more in the bear-side numbers and estimates than the bull-side ones. This is to remain very conservative in short-term predictions and expectations. I don't think in terms of days or months anymore. I think in terms of years now. I also believe hacknoid is right about the short-term (months), obviously. I just think there's also a super-cycle in effect. (I will say, this isn't what I called it when I was doing the estimates I originally made. I just called it the cycle)
Quote
5. Regarding your intentions, as I've said before, I can semi-read you from your posts and I know you are seeking the benefit for all of us. I apologize for that error. Don't worry, I'm not offended, on the contrary 
No problem. It wasn't an error, just a communication problem. I only felt the need to correct it to make sure it was clear. You're very polite about it!
Quote
6. I know you are serious but do you really mean this !!
Could you please enlight us about those high number, Raize. Geeeez, people tends to see we will reach $10K in a decade and others like Raize is talking in millions
Quote
I will say that I estimate the next bubble will be even slower and longer (maybe after 2030?) and might only end up in the $1-$3 million/coin range, though.
Could you please enlight us about those high number, Raize. Geeeez, people tends to see we will reach $10K in a decade and others like Raize is talking in millions
Yes. I really mean that is possible. But keep in mind, these are guesstimates based on adoption rates that we've yet to actually see. Obviously I expect more "Brexit"-type scenarios, and eventual adoption of the Bitcoin blockchain by major countries.
Quote
There are 3 types of people when we speculate the price
Kind 1 : We will see $5K - $10K in a decade - 15 years
Kind 2 : We will see $10K - $50K in a decade - 15 years
Kind Raize : We will see $60K - $1M in a decade - 15 years.
Kind 1 : We will see $5K - $10K in a decade - 15 years
Kind 2 : We will see $10K - $50K in a decade - 15 years
Kind Raize : We will see $60K - $1M in a decade - 15 years.
It might be 20-25 years, but yes, I see those kinds of numbers. Keep in mind there are kids who will be able to invest who aren't yet even born yet and who we, the successful crypto-currency traders, will eventually educate on its value.
Quote
Side note : I'm extremely sorry if you got offended this time as I'm trying to break the ice between ice and being friendly, so please accept my apology if my kidding with you made you offended or passed the limits.
You're fine. Just keep in mind there are some things I can't really go into detail on. Speculators that buy (or, specifically, sell) poorly are, whether fortunately or unfortunately, the people who I make money off of. I'm not horribly apologetic about it, but I will say your best investment strategy is to buy and hold against people trading cycles. I never short Bitcoin, though. That's too dangerous.
I have no idea. As none else has, if they do they lie :-) Best to not be wrong is not give predictions! But i enjoy the subject, so here are a few thoughts, i try to be TLDR;
If You saw that graph from my post, you have seen the potential wealth to growth "from". I can only say what Satoshi said about the 20 years volume (either HUGE, or zero), and volume derives from utility, and utility is a strong indicator of value in any asset class (or currency if that matters). As i have said in my angry rant, a 10.000$/BTC would be still less than 200 billion usd market cap today, which is laughably still nothing, a small mid-east country's yearly GDP with 5 million population, trading effectively raw cotton and some minerals. Nothing.
My point is: 99,9% of the populace could not imagine any useful mass usage in the first DECADE of their time for electricity/combustion engine/computers/internet, and see how most of us would literally die without them today.
To answer your question :-)
I can only say a ratio of BTC versus other store of value assets; i call it the lag of knowledge spread: mass psychosis fueled by both media and daily p2p interactions, greed, FOMO, sudden surge in "i should check this bitcoin thing out" will multiply adoption (hodlers and day-to-day users) by 100-1000 folds by 2020-2025. That is my prediction based on every other similar technology, minus the 2 important facts that: bitcoin can be money, and money is 2nd only to sex for "things worth killing for"; and the physical infrastructure is already layed down - oh and also, concurring currencies are a zero sum system. I mean, people can only have one of these combinations of any two currency with a finite purchasing power:
0-100, anything between 1-99, and 100-0, so when the perceived equilibrium is breached, it is an avalanche effect for the one below the threshold, for none wants to remain in the "dying" currency). From today's 0,004% M2 we should reach up to 0,4%-4% realistically in 10 years.
It does not necessarily means 100-1000x price increase ( i would say more, because it is a self reinforcing, exponentially (cost= N, benefit=N square) increasing network effect, but we must also count in non mathematical elements, like politics, perceptions, which are the exact opposites of economic rationality.
edit: that meant to be 100-1000, but a bit too much whine (the red liquid one, not the angry:)
If You saw that graph from my post, you have seen the potential wealth to growth "from". I can only say what Satoshi said about the 20 years volume (either HUGE, or zero), and volume derives from utility, and utility is a strong indicator of value in any asset class (or currency if that matters). As i have said in my angry rant, a 10.000$/BTC would be still less than 200 billion usd market cap today, which is laughably still nothing, a small mid-east country's yearly GDP with 5 million population, trading effectively raw cotton and some minerals. Nothing.
My point is: 99,9% of the populace could not imagine any useful mass usage in the first DECADE of their time for electricity/combustion engine/computers/internet, and see how most of us would literally die without them today.
To answer your question :-)
I can only say a ratio of BTC versus other store of value assets; i call it the lag of knowledge spread: mass psychosis fueled by both media and daily p2p interactions, greed, FOMO, sudden surge in "i should check this bitcoin thing out" will multiply adoption (hodlers and day-to-day users) by 100-1000 folds by 2020-2025. That is my prediction based on every other similar technology, minus the 2 important facts that: bitcoin can be money, and money is 2nd only to sex for "things worth killing for"; and the physical infrastructure is already layed down - oh and also, concurring currencies are a zero sum system. I mean, people can only have one of these combinations of any two currency with a finite purchasing power:
0-100, anything between 1-99, and 100-0, so when the perceived equilibrium is breached, it is an avalanche effect for the one below the threshold, for none wants to remain in the "dying" currency). From today's 0,004% M2 we should reach up to 0,4%-4% realistically in 10 years.
It does not necessarily means 100-1000x price increase ( i would say more, because it is a self reinforcing, exponentially (cost= N, benefit=N square) increasing network effect, but we must also count in non mathematical elements, like politics, perceptions, which are the exact opposites of economic rationality.
edit: that meant to be 100-1000, but a bit too much whine (the red liquid one, not the angry:)
I have no idea who AZwarel is, but he seems to maybe grasp the idea that 100-1000x increases aren't uncalled for, even at the present prices. His other comments, like those on sex, are uncouth, in my honest opinion. We have to share success with all sorts of people, though.
Quote
Edit 1 : What do you think about this one as well, Raize ?
https://medium.com/@Numerai/rogue-machine-intelligence-and-a-new-kind-of-hedge-fund-7b208deec5f0#.nl6an4ms0
https://medium.com/@Numerai/rogue-machine-intelligence-and-a-new-kind-of-hedge-fund-7b208deec5f0#.nl6an4ms0
I actually read this article a day or two ago! It's a good read, but I'm not sure we're "there" yet. There's a lot more interesting smart contracts that will turn into "smart algorithms" or some-such until people are able to figure out how they work and trade against them. To me, it seems very very unlikely that someone creating a smart hedge fund will not eventually trade against it anonymously once people invest in it.
Be careful of shysters who claim to be working in your best interest. If someone cannot clearly explain how they make you money, then YOU are the way THEY make money. Until we have blockchain-based smart contracts, take stories like this with a HUGE grain of salt.